Skip to content


Babu Kishori Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Sunder and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921All193; 64Ind.Cas.688
AppellantBabu Kishori Lal and anr.
RespondentRam Sunder and anr.
Excerpt:
.....is right in holding that there were two contracts and two sarkhats, one contract having been made within the jurisdiction, namely, in the allahabad district, and the other having been made at madhoganj in oudh, he was clearly right in the course he took as a matter of law under order vii, rule 10. the rule does not specifically state what is to be done when a plaint consists of a claim within the jurisdiction and also a claim outside the jurisdiction, but it obviously means that that portion of such a plaint which is outside the jurisdiction shall be treated as though: the learned judge was clearly right in holding (indeed, there is no objection taken to it) that the mere fast that the ancestral home of persons, who are really residing outside the jurisdiction, was within the..........state what is to be done when a plaint consists of a claim within the jurisdiction and also a claim outside the jurisdiction, but it obviously means that that portion of such a plaint which is outside the jurisdiction shall be treated as though: it was a distinct plaint by itself. the rule would be unworkable if it were not to be construed in this way. the learned judge was clearly right in holding (indeed, there is no objection taken to it) that the mere fast that the ancestral home of persons, who are really residing outside the jurisdiction, was within the jurisdiction, did not give jurisdiction.2. the point raised by mr. damodar das, the appellant, about the lack of an assignment was clearly not raised before the court of appeal and cannot be taken here for the first time. the.....
Judgment:

1. Assuming that the learned Judge is right in holding that there were two contracts and two sarkhats, one contract having been made within the jurisdiction, namely, in the Allahabad District, and the other having been made at Madhoganj in Oudh, he was clearly right in the course he took as a matter of law under Order VII, Rule 10. The rule does not specifically state what is to be done when a plaint consists of a claim within the jurisdiction and also a claim outside the jurisdiction, but it obviously means that that portion of such a plaint which is outside the jurisdiction shall be treated as though: it was a distinct plaint by itself. The rule would be unworkable if it were not to be construed in this way. The learned Judge was clearly right in holding (indeed, there is no objection taken to it) that the mere fast that the ancestral home of persons, who are really residing outside the jurisdiction, was within the jurisdiction, did not give jurisdiction.

2. The point raised by Mr. Damodar Das, the appellant, about the lack of an assignment was clearly not raised before the Court of Appeal and cannot be taken here for the first time. The other question about the filing of the two sarkhats is a question of fact, and this appeal must be rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //